beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The summary of the cause of the claim is C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “C”) and D D Limited Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “D”) of China, employed by the Defendant, who is the actual operator of DD D D D D D D D D D D D (hereinafter referred to as “D”), and served in China from February 28, 2008 to January 31, 2013, and paid benefits in installments at the Korean head office and Chinese subsidiary. The Plaintiff paid benefits to the Plaintiff from October 28, 2010 to January 31, 2013. The amount of benefits that the Plaintiff did not receive from the Chinese subsidiary is KRW 17,065,125 (Korean won conversion of KRW 103,425) (Korean People’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea’s head office from April 2008 to February 2, 2013).
2. Determination of whether an employee is a “worker” under the Labor Standards Act, regardless of the form of a contract, shall be based on whether the employee provided labor in a subordinate relationship with the employer for the purpose of wages. On the contrary, determination of who is liable to pay wages and retirement allowances to a certain employee should be based on the actual employment relationship regardless of the form of a contract or the content of the relevant laws
(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da56235 delivered on February 9, 199, etc.). In full view of the evidence Nos. 1, 1, 2, and 9’s written evidence No. 9, the annual salary amount of the Plaintiff’s total contract to the Plaintiff is the amount of KRW 207,636 paid to the People’s Republic of China, and the contract term is from July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2009, the annual salary contract term of which is indicated from July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2009, the Defendant affixed the Defendant’s seal at the bottom of the annual salary contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) signed on June 22, 2008, and the Defendant remitted it to the Plaintiff’s savings account (bank, company, E) for about 30 times from September 20 to August 2012.
However, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 10 to Gap evidence 12, Eul evidence 1, and Eul evidence 3.